From: Geoff Hutchison <ghutchis@wso.williams.edu>:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Arthur Prokosch wrote:
>
> > the wordlist. It appears that when one of the AND'ed words is
> _not_ present
> > in the wordlist, that word is simply ignored (order doesn't matter).
> >
> > It occurs to me that this could be by design - if so, I guess
> I'd like to
> > request that it be a user-configurable option, or at least that the
> > LogicalWords displayed reflect the removal of the unknown word.
>
> If a word is in the bad_word_list file, it is ignored completely. This is
> already user-configurable (since you can edit the file or empty it
> completely). Similarly, if the word is shorter than the
> minimum_word_length attribute it is also ignored completely. Both
> behaviors are mentioned in the documentation.

The word in question (say, 'fluble') is _not_ in bad_words, and is not below
3 characters. It's not in _any_ list. The difference in behavior has to do
with whether a word _was ever added to the words database_, as far as I can
tell.

I'm kind of at a loss to explain what's going on here. I'd think that a
loop used to AND two lists of matches together is hitting an unexpected
boundary condition (when one list is null or something similar), but I
didn't find the code in question with a quick search.